Loki wrote:There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis.
Only in your personal definition of "civilizational collapse."
Loki wrote:There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis.
Bloomberg
Pemex Oil Output Matches Smallest Drop in Two Years (Update1)
April 08, 2010, 2:36 PM EDT
Story Tools
* e-mail this story
* print this story
* digg this
* save to del.icio.us
* add to Business Exchange
(Adds Ku-Maloob-Zaap and Cantarell’s production in fourth paragraph.)
By Carlos Manuel Rodriguez
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos’s crude production fell 2 percent last month, matching the smallest decline rate in more than two years in February as Latin America’s largest oil producer seeks to arrest slumping output.
Output at Pemex, as the company is known, dropped to 2.599 million barrels a day from 2.652 million barrels in the year- earlier period, Mexico’s National Hydrocarbons Commission said on its Web site in a report dated April 4.
WestTexas wrote: As Pitt pointed out, the ELM basically asks a hypothetical question for a hypothetical country (consuming 50% of production at peak production): What happens to net oil exports if production declines at 5% and consumption increases at 2.5%?
The answer is that net exports go to zero in 9 years, and only about 10% of remaining production would be exported. In any case, I suggest that you check out the ELM versus real data in Mexico post that Kkebab did. Also, the UK went from peak exports to zero exports in about six years.
In regard to economics, my premise is, and was, that once net exports started declining, oil prices would rise, generating increasing income for the exporters, even as their net exports fall. This would tend to have the effect, in short term at least, of increasing domestic demand in exporting countries. This is precisely what we saw in 2006. For example, the top five showed a 1.3% decline in production, a 5.5% increase in consumption and a 3.3% reduction in net exports (EIA, Total Liquids from 2005 to 2006).
IMO, almost everyone (Matt Simmons being a notable exception) in the Peak Oil community has been focused on the wrong thing--total production--when what counts is net exports.
Does this mean the Mexican state is finished? The current crack-down by the Mexican military and federal police is, I think, best seen as a last-ditch effort to save the state. But it is also evidence that, by the very existence of this pitched battle, the state retains enough viability to pose a threat, and therefore to be targeted.
In military theory, pitched battles are only consciously joined by both sides when both have an incentive to risk the main body of their force—-either because they think they can win a decisive victory or because they are running out of the political, logistical, or economic ability to sustain their army in the field and must seek a decisive action while they can.
Clearly the drug cartels smell blood—-and tactics like forcing the resignation of the Juarez police chief by killing one or more police officers every 48 hours demonstrate their desire for a decisive engagement. Additionally, the motivation behind a recent truce among rival drug cartels may be to facilitate a joint offensive against the government.
In my opinion, the Mexican government is seeking a pitched battle for the second reason—with their oil hedges only in place through 2009, and with oil production, remittance income, and tourism dollars poised to continue a sharp decline, the state may not have much more than a year of financial viability in which to cripple the drug cartels.
mcgowanjm wrote:And while we're here, Jeff Vails, from March '09:
Supply their Citizens or Kill them, decisions, decisions...
shortonsense wrote:This topic comes about because of a recent exchange between AirlinePilot and I, the results of which were apparently 2 different polls to try and determine the mix of UberDoomer,Peaker,Cornocopian,Utopianite.
The summary of that conversion is as follows:
Short: Peak Oil is associated with crackpots and therefore loses credibility
Airline: We aren't all Doomers, stop characterizing us at this website that way
Short: Have you taken a poll
Airline: Poll appears.
The underlying comments which generated this exchange relate to the following, I submit that peak oil "gets no respect" because it associated with the likes of nutjobs and crackpots who use it to their own ends. Website subscription and book sales, honorariums or solar ovens, it just doesn't matter, the game is BAU in the form of internet sales, and peak oil fear mongering is simply the means to an end. There is also the individuals on the forums, pushing the nonstop 9/11 trivia, the faked moon landings, the real moon landings which found aliens instead (yes, I have references for these as well), massive starvation in America, you name it, it becomes connected to peak oil through proximity, and what might be limited to a single giggle from a curious passer by becomes hysterical laughter in short order. And presto...peak oil credibility goes right out the window.
I advocate that if peak oil could disassociate itself from such nonsense, it might be taken more seriously. General public familiarity with even a small component of the resource depletion issue, without the related crackpottery, is a good thing. People who are better aware of a credible and serious issue are more likely to be receptive to proposed solutions and such.
Feel free to advocate a position on the topic, but can we please refrain from allowing the conversation to degenerate into the normal pro/con positions papers as various advocacy groups defend their pet theories.
pstarr wrote:Apparently Shorty you have not read your Hirsch. None of your mitigation schemes could possibly be effective in the time frame required. Conservation (volt still uses gasoline) and replacement (ng) strategies would require too much work done, prior to peak. That has not happened. From the Hirsch Report:How you expect the entire transportation infrastructure to be revamped (natural gas/electric transmission supply lines along major highways) during the post-peak financial crisis is beyond me.* Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
* Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.
Before you smear the report and the author, understand that the report was commissioned by US Department of Energy and that Hirsch himself was Director of fusion research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Manager of Petroleum Exploratory Research at Exxon.
Have fun, Shorty? See if you can dig up some irrelevant dirt This should be fun!
AdamB wrote:So do you still hold a high opinion of Bob there pstarr? Turns out, he was REALLY wrong, and as you do with anything built into your dogma, you FELL for it! But the real question is, do you understand now why he was wrong?
coffeeguyzz wrote:Adam
The "why" he was wrong holds important lessons for any open minded seeker of truth.
The posters on this site who staunchly posses predetermined positions - more ideologically motivated than factual - are disinclined to study the waywardness of yesteryear's claims.
coffeeguyzz wrote:arrogant Know Nothing ... with charts....
Plantagenet wrote:coffeeguyzz wrote:Adam
The "why" he was wrong holds important lessons for any open minded seeker of truth.
The posters on this site who staunchly posses predetermined positions - more ideologically motivated than factual - are disinclined to study the waywardness of yesteryear's claims.
?????
Do you really not understand why oil production hasn't already peaked?
Its really not hard to understand. In fact----I can explain it to you in just two sentences. Now pay attention and see if you can understand.....
1. Beginning the mid-2000s, drillers in the US utilized techniques like horizontal drilling and high pressure hydrofracturing to successfully tap large quantities of oil from oil shales, starting in the Bakken and then spreading to other US tight oil shale deposits.
OK---did you understand that? If so, lets go on to the second sentence:
2. The new production from US TOS caused global oil production to continue to slowly grow, even as growth in conventional oil production topped out and began to decline.
Get it now?
LOOK! Oil production from US tight Oil shale is the reason global oil production hasn't already peaked.
Cheers!
Plantagenet wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:
LOOK! Oil production from US tight Oil shale is playing a role in keeping global oil production from peaking.
Cheers!
An over simplification.
vtsnowedin wrote:.... the vast reserves of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Iraq and Iran ....
The exact amount of those reserves is a closely guarded secret and estimates of how much KSA has left vary from a year or two to decades.
vtsnowedin wrote: Until one or more of these mega producers comes to a point where they can't increase production when they want to we will not see a real peak oil. Throw Russia into the equation and it becomes even more difficult to estimate oil supply more then a few months out. No amount of shale oil drilling could ever make up for a shortfall from the middle east.
Plantagenet wrote:
How are the actual numbers showing the source of actual global oil production an oversimplification? The data is simply the data. As the chart shows, the actual data on global oil production clearly shows that US production from TOS is playing a big role right now in allowing global oil production levels to slowly increase.
While you can have reserves and not produce them a la Venezuela, without reserves no amount of effort or investment will produce anything.vtsnowedin wrote:.... the vast reserves of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Iraq and Iran ....
The exact amount of those reserves is a closely guarded secret and estimates of how much KSA has left vary from a year or two to decades.
Peak Oil isn't about reserves. Peak Oil is about production rate. A country can have absolutely huge reserves, but still be quite incapable of producing them. For instance, look at the ongoing production collapse in Venezuela.
And since the known super giant fields in KSA, Russia etc. have already been producing for decades, it is inevitable that they will peak and decline, sooner rather then later, just as Cantarell in Mexico peaked and quickly declined several years ago.
In fact, there is reason to believe that Ghawar, the largest oilfield in the world, is nearing the end of its life. Its already been producing for over 50 years, and the water cut in production wells is increasing. A collapse in production at Ghawar would remove ca. 5 million bbls/day from the global oil market.....and that is an interesting thing to contemplate.
CHEERS!
spike wrote:EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.
tita wrote:spike wrote:EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.
This graph is from 2013, and World C+C in august 2013 was at 76 mb/d.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests